Ss the stars and their starry-eyed fans gathered for the premiere of the latest Star Wars movie , there were fears that the £2bn blockbuster may be too frightening for the young audience its 12A rating will target.

With villagers slaughtered, characters tortured and an entire planet obliterated in one shot, The Force Awakens paints a picture of a very violent universe. Experts say the film looks to be far more graphic than the original trilogy from the 1970s and
1980s which was billed as a fairy tale style adventure

As the on-screen body count mounts, parents have been urged to consider whether they should take young children to see it.

And by 'experts' the Daily Mail is referring to the likes of Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch UK, who wailed:

Many parents will remember the original Star Wars films of the 1970s and 1980s, which were lower ratings. Of course, what made a PG then is very different to what makes a PG now and I think that's part of the problem actually.

They would have been under a lot of pressure actually to get a 12A because it means they will be able to sell more tickets. It means that as a parent you are expected to go a see a film first to decide whether it's suitable for your child.

This very sad trend comes as no surprise because this is the first generation that has had access to porn at the click of a mouse, 24/7.

In previous eras, it was little more than pictures of naked ladies; whereas today's material is often violent and misogynistic.

The Scottish Government poll interviewed nearly 1,500 adults across all age groups, asking how wrong it was for an adult to watch pornography at home. In all, 21% said it was always wrong. Among the over 65s, however, the figure was 44% and 18% for
those aged 40 to 69. It was 17% for people in their 30s, but only 6% for the youngest age group.

Meanwhile, those on higher incomes and with better qualifications were more accepting of pornography.

The BBFC rated the cinema release as 12A uncut for moderate violence, threat.

The Daily Mail has a rather half-hearted knock at this 12A certificate:

With a bombing of families, monsters eating people alive and a public execution, it hardly seems ideal viewing for children.

But film censors appear to think otherwise, giving the latest instalment of The Hunger Games a 12A classification, meaning it can be seen by children of primary school age accompanied by an adult.

In one scene, the main characters are involved in a gruesome fight with monsters with no eyes and razor-sharp teeth during which one man is eaten alive.

In another, young families are targeted by bombs, disguised as gifts, causing mass death and destruction. Such scenes have fuelled the debate about whether 12A classifications give enough protection to young people.

The Daily Mail dragged up a few trivial sound bites from censorial campaigners, including a rare comment from Mediawatch-UK.

Claude Knights, of the charity Kidscape, said of the latest film:

I wonder why it wasn't given a more robust rating. Many parents wouldn't take their children to something like this, but because it's a 12A they might not be expecting it to be this way.

The danger is that these scenes become normal. They become desensitised and the level of gore and violence becomes normalised.

Vivienne Pattison, director of lobby group Mediawatch UK, said:

The industry is terribly keen to get things through as a 12A, as suddenly you've doubled your market potentially.

There have been quite a few 12A films recently that I just don't think you'd want to take an eight-year-old to see, although it's perfectly legal to do so.

Channels Five's new series, Body Donors features two cancer victims who have agreed to donate their bodies to medical science after they die. They consented to be filmed both before and after their deaths.

One is former diver Mike Bowyer. Footage shows him being taken to the University of Liverpool in a body bag. His corpse is washed and shaved as he is prepared for medics and students. He is then pumped with embalming fluid to preserve his body for up to
three years.

Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch, said: It may cause some distress.

A show spokesman added: There is an appropriate warning at the beginning.

Warning Explicit Content: Rihanna fully nude and bloody on quest for revenge in Bitch Better Have My Money music video

The seven-minute video was rated for mature audiences for its language, nudity and violence.

The Mail then continues giving a full illustrated synopsis of the video. And strangely the description is straightforward and totally lacking in the flowery prose of Daily Mail 'outrage'.

The Guardian adds:

Depending on which commentator or social media spat you choose, the video, viewed 12 million times since its release, is either an empowering challenge to music industry stereotypes or a racist and gory piece of misogyny.

Predictably, BBHMM ignited a furious debate. A headline on Refinery29 declared the video Not Safe For Work or Feminists while Twitter accused Rihanna of glorifying violence against women, and condemned the kidnapped female trope.
Rolling Stone was attacked for praising the video and crediting the two minor male roles while not even giving a name to the actress who plays the main role.

In general the newspapers seem disappointingly unoutraged. Rihanna needs to try a bit harder.

Rihanna and a video that should turn all mothers' stomachs: 'Concerned parent', [and wife of the government's chief whip] Sarah Vine, on the star's latest song that glorifies murder, torture, drug-taking, guns and racial stereotyping

When I first watched Rihanna's repulsive new video for her repulsive single, Bitch Better Have My Money , it had only had a couple of million views. It was last Wednesday, in fact, shortly after Nick Grimshaw had mentioned it on his Radio
1 Breakfast Show.

Even Grimshaw seemed a little bit shocked -- and he's not exactly a prude. It had made him feel proper sick, he said. Hmm, I thought to myself. Better check this one out.

...

A civilised society learns to censor such things for the greater good of all who live in it.

Without such boundaries, we are little more than savages. And Rihanna reminds us just how far we have fallen.

British made online music videos are to being given age ratings. The BBFC, which is running the initiative, has estimated that one in five videos released will be deemed unfit for those under 12. Video sharing sites YouTube and Vevo have signed up to the
scheme and pledged to include the warnings on clips uploaded to their sites. Vevo puts the rating in the top corner of the video, while YouTube includes it in the information beneath.

However some of the world's raunchiest performers, such as Miley Cyrus and Rihanna, are not covered by the scheme and there are no measures in place to enforce the guidelines. A spokesman for Vevo said:

There is no signing in as such or filters -- although this is a next step that may be added in time. At the moment this is about giving parents and users the information they need to make a more informed viewing choice and decision. To be effective it
requires that parents also take an active interest in what their children are watching.

Rapper Dizzee Rascal has scored a first, his video Couple of Stacks is the first and so far the only 18 rating under the initiative for strong bloody violence, gore, very strong language . The three and a half minute clip contains extreme
violence with the rapper ripping the heart out of a stripping woman, brandishing a knife while covered in blood and decapitating a woman whose body then stumbles around the room. He also holds a family hostage and serves a cake with severed fingers
instead of candles. He is shown pulling out a person's eyeball, slitting one woman's throat and cutting another's head in half.

Vivienne Pattison, a moralist campaigner from Media Watch-UK, said:

When parents are surveyed, the two areas that came up as being particularly problematic were soap operas and music videos, those are the two areas that come up again and again as the issue. One in five, that's a huge number of videos.

What happens is one video pushes the boundaries and the next artists is under pressure to do the same in order to get people talking about it. It becomes a great merry-go-round and I think that is a fantastic illustration of exactly where this is gone,
it's quite extraordinary.

It's not a magic bullet but it's a fantastic step and I think it will really make a difference. I don't know where we will end up down the line but I would like this to act as a kite mark for music videos. This is not a move about censorship, the videos
will all still be there, but I think artists and record companies need to take seriously that if they are targeting young fans they have got to do it responsibly.

On the lack of enforcement of the ratings, she said: You can't go into a shop and buy a 15 rated film without ID and we need to see about extending those protections online.

Ann Summers has removed some Fifty Shades of Grey-style posters from its windows following
whinges from mothers and bullying campaigners.

The high street lingerie chain confirmed several branches, located near stores targeted at children such as Mothercare and Build-A-Bear, have removed the images.

The posters, which were rolled out in all 142 Ann Summers stores several weeks ago, show a woman
kneeling on a red sofa, dressed in a cut-away leotard that at first glance looks like she is just wearing nipple tassels, but in fact she is wearing a bra with a cap design over the area of the nipple.

She is holding a large leather whip and striking a pose next to a handcuffed man in his underpants.

Mothers and campaigners ludicrously complained that the pornographic images could be easily seen by children

Vivienne Pattison of moralist campaign group Mediawatch-UK said her group had made complaints about nine branches of Ann Summers.

As a result the posters have been removed from stores in Milton Keynes, Wimbledon, Sutton, Norwich, Eastbourne, Taunton, and the Ann Summers stores in all 18 Intu Chapelfield shopping centres. A spokesman for Ann Summers confirmed the company has
had six complaints from its retail stores and fewer than 20 complaints via email or letters.

Pattison claimed the campaign potentially breached the recommendations made by the 2011 Bailey Review into the sexualisation of children. She spouted:

We are used to seeing the windows of Ann Summers featuring lingerie but this image, featuring a bare breasted (except for nipple tassels) model goes too far and is inappropriate for display in places which are likely to have numbers of children present.

Any child passing this image will be subject to its overt sexual messaging and imagery. Government guidelines for retailers in the Bailey Review state that sexualised images should not be displayed in children's eye line.

This government has done much to address the early sexualisation of children in our society and Ann Summers needs to be made aware that it too has a responsibility in this regard.

Christian pastor Paul Burns joined and said he was 'shocked' to see the display on his way to church. He said:

I watched four separate families pull their children away from this window display. It has whips, it has a woman basically degraded with what you would expect to see in a porn film that people buy to watch. It is not what you expect to see in a family
shopping centre.

Kathy McGuinness, founder of the two year old anti-sexualisation campaign group, Child's Eye Line UK, whinged about
the poster continuing to be displayed at the Staines store:

They are pushing the boundaries and it's all about profit. They don't care about children. You've got parents wheeling children around shopping centres and they shouldn't have to deal with it. It may be okay for adults to see it, or not, but for a child
it's very confusing.

They want to make as big an impact as possible, and it's pushing the boundaries. How is that fair for children? This shows a sexualised image which is damaging to children and is unacceptable in the High Street.

The guidelines are there for a good reason after extensive research. It's irresponsible in a family-friendly shopping centre. Ann Summers is refusing to act and the only reason the posters are coming down is because the shopping centres have shamed them
into it.

Ann Summers is yet to make a responsible decision and is only doing so when it is enforced where local shopping centres have applied pressure.

The Two Rivers Shopping Centre said it had not received any complaints, but it has been in contact with the lingerie store about the poster and is awaiting a reply from its head office.

Mediawatch-UK has made the inevitable blog entry about Fifty Shades of Grey and kindly adds some fine piffle to the hype for the movie. The morality campaigners write:

The book on which this film was based glamorised and legitimised both sexual and domestic violence. With the mainstream release and promotion of this film opinion makers, the media and celebrities are legitimising this violence too.

Sexual violence and sexual exploitation are at an all time high, permeating our culture by way of hardcore pornography. This film further legitimises them despite the fact that making violence sexy has significant consequences to individuals,
relationships and society.

This film also perpetuates the fairy tale that women can fix violent, controlling men by being obedient and loving.

Violence is violence and inflicting sexual violence is not sexy. While this should be a black-and-white truth, this film is selling it in all shades of grey.

The BBFC has given the film an 18 certificate because it contains strong sex and nudity, along with the portrayal of erotic role play based on domination, submission and sado-masochistic practices .

We'd like to amend this to read: Promotes torture as sexually gratifying, encourages stalking and abuse of power, promotes female inequality, glamorises and legitimises violence against women.

ITV's This Morning unveiled a segment called Bondage For Beginners , which featured a live demonstration of 50 Shades of Grey inspired sex toys

Phillip Schofield had warned viewers shortly after 10.30am that they would be discussing bondage equipment in three stages -- beginners, intermediate and advanced -- throughout the show with sexpert Annabelle Knight. However he assured them it
would be done in good taste .

And a few miserable viewers were inevitably not amused and took to Twitter to air a few inane and trivial comments. They ludicrously described the programme's content as pornographic and ridiculously inappropriate for daytime TV.

TV censor Ofcom said afterwards that it had received 70 complaints and was assessing whether to start an investigation.

Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch UK, said the show had set a dangerous example:

It's not enough to say most children will be at school [at that time] because that's just not good enough.

Quite apart from issues of taste and the fact that people might not want to speak to their children about this, I think it is dangerous to normalise this kind of behaviour. [50 Shades Of Grey] is putting across ideas that humiliation is pleasurable and
torture is gratifying and I don't think those are healthy for anybody at all.

But if it is dangerous for adults then it is doubly dangerous for children watching this.

An ITV spokesman said:

This Morning is a lifestyle programme that covers a diverse range of human interest topics. The programme has dealt with advice on sexual matters many times in the past, and a suitable announcement was given at the start.

ITV daytime show This Morning is to be investigated by media regulator Ofcom after it offered viewers a lesson in bondage for beginners featuring sex toys inspired by hit film,
Fifty Shades of Grey.

Ofcom said it had 120 complaints from viewers about the item, fronted by the programme's regular presenters Christine Bleakely and Philip Schofield along with sexpert Annabelle Knight, featuring bondage equipment and other X-rated topics.

The regulator said it was investigating whether the programme was suitable for broadcast before the 9pm watershed.